How Old is the Earth?

[Aloysius]

according to the Catholic Church, you must beleive in a literal Adam and Eve, they did not represent a community of people (polygenism, condemned as a heresy by Pius XII) but rather were two individuals (monogenism, actually supported by some more modern scientific advances and theories anyway) who fell from grace.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='john6:63' date='Jul 24 2005, 03:42 PM']Here’s my non scientific theory, if Adam lived to be 930 years old and was created on day 6 of the creation week and each numbered day of the creation week is preceded by “evening” and “morning”, then judging from the Gospel of Luke which traces the genealogy of Christ back to Adam, the earth can’t be that old at all.

If Adam as some have suggested to me in the past is merely figurative, then IMO, that puts the Gospel on shaky ground.

If there’s no literal Adam, then there was no literal Fall and if there’s no literal Fall, then there’s no literal Hell and if there’s no literal Hell, then Christ’s atonement for sin is useless.

Gold bless
[right][snapback]657229[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The Church teaches that Adam was a literal human being, and the common ancestor of all humanity. You cannot deviate from a literal understanding of Adam and remain within orthodoxy.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jul 24 2005, 03:42 PM'][quote name='Laudate_Dominum']As far as the other groups I mentioned are concerned, I know of a Cro-magnon skull that indicates a brain size of 1600cc. And a Neandertal specimen that comes in at 1620 cc. These exceed the average for modern humans by quite a bit.[/quote]

I'd just like to point out that Cro-Magnon were modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens). And that neandertals aren't considered a hominid species anymore (in fact, they coexisted with humans). They had larger brain sizes, but I remember reading that this was due to their robust build.
[right][snapback]657227[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I was being terse, and I had no intention of implying that Cro-magnon man was not homo sapiens sapiens. Their mention was just a little side thing. Also, do you happen to have some evidence/arguments which support the idea that neandertal is not human? I am aware of minor anatomical differences, but nothing I have seen compells me to believe they must be a seperate species. What's wrong with the idea that they were a race of men who adapted to a particularly harsh climate and way of life? I'm no specialist so forgive me if I'm missing something obvious.

[desertwoman]

Wednesday, October 23?


Hey!!!! Thats my birthday!!!!!! Not the year.......of course............

Edited July 24, 2005 by desertwoman

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jul 24 2005, 03:42 PM'][quote name='Laudate_Dominum']As far as the other groups I mentioned are concerned, I know of a Cro-magnon skull that indicates a brain size of 1600cc. And a Neandertal specimen that comes in at 1620 cc. These exceed the average for modern humans by quite a bit.[/quote]

I'd just like to point out that Cro-Magnon were modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens). And that neandertals aren't considered a hominid species anymore (in fact, they coexisted with humans). They had larger brain sizes, but I remember reading that this was due to their robust build.
[right][snapback]657227[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i will have to check that for myself...........i never heard that neanderthals were no longer considered a hominoid species.

[Semalsia]

[quote]Also, do you happen to have some evidence/arguments which support the idea that neandertal is not human? I am aware of minor anatomical differences, but nothing I have seen compells me to believe they must be a seperate species. [/quote]

I wanted to just point out that there are no modern descendants of neandertals. They were a lot like humans. A subspecies of humans? I don't know what is too much change. Given time they might have ended up a lot less like humans.

[quote]What's wrong with the idea that they were a race of men who adapted to a particularly harsh climate and way of life?[/quote]

Nothing I guess, but isn't that how new species are born? A population gets separated, experience different enviroments and after some time they can't be considered the same species anymore. I guess the the definition of species is a bit vague when comparing so close to kin.

[quote] I'm no specialist so forgive me if I'm missing something obvious.[/quote]

You probably know more of this than I do.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='infinitelord1']i never heard that neanderthals were no longer considered a hominoid species.[/quote]

It might be wrong. I meant that they are not our ancestors.

[Krush2k2]

IF CRO MAGNON MAN EVOLVED generations after Adam, then Adam and Eve were more monkey like then human, right? And if death is the result of sin, but the earth dates back billions of years ago, then wouldnt adam and eve have to link back billions of years ago?

[john6:63]

[quote name='Krush2k2' date='Jul 24 2005, 05:56 PM']IF CRO MAGNON MAN EVOLVED generations after Adam, then Adam and Eve were more monkey like then human, right? And if death is the result of sin, but the earth dates back billions of years ago, then wouldnt adam and eve have to link back billions of years ago?
[right][snapback]657320[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The Gospel of Luke records Jesus genealogy back to Adam, who was created on day 6 and only lived to be 930 years old. Hard to get billions out of that math.

[Aloysius]

you don'tt have to take all the measurements of time literally, they were not even necessarily intended literally.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Krush2k2' date='Jul 24 2005, 04:56 PM']IF CRO MAGNON MAN EVOLVED generations after Adam, then Adam and Eve were more monkey like then human, right? And if death is the result of sin, but the earth dates back billions of years ago, then wouldnt adam and eve have to link back billions of years ago?
[right][snapback]657320[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't like thinking of them as monkey-like, and I don't think it's true. Things like how much hair they may have had, and the precise layout of soft tissue is largely speculation and at times even artistic license. I have grown to reject the depictions of homo erectus that I recall from my days in the public school system.

I will re-post the skeleton from my last post because it is a good illustration.

[img]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.jpg[/img]
What I see here is a man, not a monkey. This is a man (an adolescent actually) from 1.6 million years ago. The differences are not substantial. From homo erectus to today we have men who, compared to the various beasts that are classified as primates, have large brains, small teeth and are true bipeds.
The substantiated fossil record prior to homo erectus (lets look at homo habilis who died off around 1.6 million years ago) consists of creatures with small brains, large teeth and who are merely facultative bipeds (like many modern apes). What these sound like to me are apes, beasts. Whereas homo erectus on sounds and looks remarkably like men. (And I tend to think they were men, with immortal souls and the like).

When one considers the variation of existing human races it is not much of a stretch to accept this. One might say that primitive hominids had larger teeth, which is true, but what is often overlooked is that there are specific races (such as australian aborigines) who have large teeth like these primitive races, but no one claims they are more monkey than man. Consider the adaptations and variations of some more radical racial examples, pygmy people, mountain people of the Andes, certain highly distinct African tribes, etc.. There is hardly one standard of what a man's bone structure and physique ought to be, there is a great deal of variation. And we do not posit a different species based on these varying details.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='john6:63' date='Jul 24 2005, 05:15 PM']The Gospel of Luke records Jesus genealogy  back to Adam, who was created on day 6 and only lived to be 930 years old. Hard to get billions out of that math.
[right][snapback]657344[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
True, but in the Jewish idiom it is normal to make leaps across many generations. You do not have to name each parent in the geneological chain for it to be a valid geneology. You could say that Bob began Jim who begat Steve, even if their was a thousand years between Bob and Jim. The fact is they are still of the same line, and that is what's important.

I even apply this to Genesis. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans created by God and that all races of humanity (existing and extinct) are their decendents. I believe that one can assume a vast generational gap between Adam and Even and Cain and Abel. This would not be against the genre or idiom but fits with it in fact. I also assume gaps in other accounts in Genesis where assuming a large gap between generations resolves tensions within the text. For example, assuming a generational gap between Adam and Cain resolves the problem with passages that describe a populated earth in Cain's lifetime. If we understand that Cain was an offspring of Adam and Eve (in a broader sense) we can accept that Cain existed perhaps even a million years after Adam in a region that was nicely populated.

Just a thought anyway.

[Laudate_Dominum]

And I would like to clarify that all the talk I've given to adaptions and racial variations, does not mean I support Darwinism or any particular theory of evolution. I simply believe that microevolution is a no brainer. Species adapt in many ways. Considering that humans have been breeding animals since quite ancient times, I don't see this as a remarkably noteworthy insight. What concerns me is macroevolution. At this time I will avoid the question of macroevolution but say that it ought not pertain to the issues I outlined above.

I have yet to be convinced of any of the theories which try to explain macroevolution, although I admit I have a great deal to learn about the subject. Until then, it's all the hand of God (which it is regardless).

[kateri05]

laudate, wouldn't that make adam and eve "cave men" who didn't have language or anything, or really enough intelligence to understand and disobey the Lord in the Garden? that seems to contradict the Bible.

where's bro. adam on this topic? :

[Krush2k2]

[quote name='kateri05' date='Jul 24 2005, 07:29 PM']laudate, wouldn't that make adam and eve "cave men" who didn't have language or anything, or really enough intelligence to understand and disobey the Lord in the Garden?  that seems to contradict the Bible. 


[right][snapback]657509[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Exactly, how do u explain that??